Tag: kanglaonline

(A report on the backdrop of vexatious election of Manipur, India)
By L. Muhindro Singh
This paper is specially developed when the writer joined Rodrigues Regional Assembly Elections, Mauritius recently held on 5 February 2012 just after a week of Manipur Legislative Assembly Elections 28 January 2012. As the writer found a drastic contrast, it seems to compel to see the way for consolidation of democracy, whether it is possible in Manipur. The writer is now attaching in the University of Mauritius as nominated by UGC, New Delhi to make a comparative study on contemporary electoral trends of India and Mauritius.

“Mauritius has never developed a ‘bullet’ culture, adopting instead a culture of the ‘ballot’.” (Bunwaree, EISA 2005)

According to the newly released London-based Economist Intelligence Unit’s Democracy Index which monitors 167 nations, Mauritius ranks in 24th out of 25 “full democracies” whilst Norway in the top rank and India in the 39 as “flawed democracy”. The Index is based on five criteria: electoral process and pluralism, civil liberties, the functioning of government, political participation and political culture. On the basis of electoral democracy, Freedom House report 2011 also mentioned that Mauritius is free in political rights and civil liberty.

The Republic of Mauritius is a group of islands in the South West of the Indian Ocean, consisting of the main island of Mauritius, Rodrigues and several outer islands. The islands of Mauritius and Rodrigues, with a total area of 1,969 sqkm, have an overall population density of 644 persons per sqkm. The population, estimated at 1.3 million, comprises Hindus, Muslims, Sino-Mauritians and mixed European and African origin. Mauritius has been successively a Dutch, French and British colony. It became independent from Great Britain on 12th March 1968 and acceded to the status of Republic within the Commonwealth on 12th March 1992. The official language is English, but French is widely spoken. However, Creole is the predominant mother tongue and several ancestral languages are still spoken. (Bertha C, EISA, 24 June 2005)

Mauritius has a good track record in respecting human and fundamental rights as well as democratic principles. Civil society is today regularly consulted on national policy formulation and stakeholders are involved in issues of national interest. (National Assessment Report 2010) Since its independence in 1968, Mauritius has a parliamentary democracy based on the Westminster system. Since 2002, the island of Rodrigues enjoys significant autonomy as well as its own regional assembly. National and local elections are held every five years under universal adult franchise and all the registered electorates who have attend the 18 years have the right to vote.

Mauritius is considered one of the most stable and democratic countries in Africa. Mauritius has an acceptable constitutional and legal framework, a largely satisfactory electoral system, a sound and transparent electoral process and legitimate and credible electoral management bodies (Bertha 2005). The constitution provides for freedom of speech, press and assembly and the government generally respects these rights in practice.

The electoral system used in Mauritius is the first past the post block vote (FPTP-BV) and best looser system. The present National Assembly comprises 62 elected members who are elected by party list from 20 constituencies returning 3 members each and only two members from (21) Rodrigues. Each voter has to vote for three candidates of their choice. If the voter chooses two candidates (for example), the ballot becomes invalid. Furthermore, 8 additional seats are allocated to the best losers who represent ethnic groups that would have been missed by the elected parties. The advantage of the block vote system is that it allows voter preference for individual candidates. The disadvantage is that if voters cast all their votes for candidates from the same party the BV system produces highly disproportional results. (Mauritius Election Observer Report 2000, EISA) The independent Electoral Supervisory Commission (ESC) and the electoral commissioner determine how the ethnic and political balance of the National Assembly will serve minorities by naming a maximum of 8 best losers.

Election related conflicts are quite prevalent in Africa. However, Mauritius has been fortunate in that in its more than 40 years of holding elections the country has never fallen victim to serious electoral conflict. (Bertha 2005) This has led to its becoming renowned as one of the most stable and democratic countries in Africa with its citizens enjoying political and civil rights. Any electoral challenges are managed through the judicial process. Mauritius has been committed to upholding the fundamental rights and freedoms embodied in its constitution and legal framework as well as to holding free and fair, credible elections. 

Vote buying case is a big issue in many developing democratic countries. It is also learnt that no vote buying case is found so far in this tiny island, when I asked to some electorate, they said that “all the electorates have mobile phone so it will inform to the concern police officials, so such kind of happening like distribution of cash for vote will be very tough”. The same response was also found when I made conversation with Chief Electoral Officer of Mauritius. The significance of mobile phone on the eve of election is very high for free and fair election in Mauritius.  Yes there is little bit suspicion that some candidates might have indulged in the malpractices that there is allegation of distributing some utensils and other material to the poor electorate with a view to influence them. The culture of donation by well wishers or corporate bodies to the prospective parties or candidate is appeared that can be influencing factor to unfair election. To get nominated from a party is very crucial that new comers has less chance though they said parties required any sum of money from candidates to secure their candidacy; however, once candidates were offered seats they must be ready to contribute a huge amount for party campaigns. (Bunwaree, EISA 2005) 

Significantly election code of conduct was started on trial basis when there was by-election in the Quartier Militaire/Moka in March 2009. In prior to this, there was no specific rules or codes of conduct although there are various informal practices and unwritten rules by which parties have to abide. The media is a critical stakeholder in helping the electorate to make a well informed choice. Prospective candidates use newspapers, radio and TV to influence voters. Of these, TV is the most powerful electoral apparatus, followed by radio. The publicly funded Mauritius Broadcasting Corporation (MBC) enjoys an absolute monopoly in the Mauritius media structure. The monopolistic status and the broad audience that the MBC enjoys combine to make them the most powerful tool in the management of public opinion, especially during the election period. (Mauritius Times) During election campaign, streets and building facades in each constituency strewn with banners, posters and plastic ribbons popularising the symbols and colours of competing parties. Election manifesto is considered very seriously that all the parties have strong commitment to follow their policy programmes led down in the party manifestos that was also formulated through different level of responsible committees of the parties.

The Rodrigues Regional Assembly Elections 2012

All the electorates have well aware of their electoral system but one outsider will have tough to understand the system easily. The Rodrigues Regional Assembly is consisting of 18 members elected, 12 of whom for local region members and the other 6 for Island region members. Election system is mixing in the sense that electorates have 3 votes comprising of two local region votes and one Island region vote. The local region votes shall be given for 2 candidates to be members for the local region. The Island region vote shall be given for a registered political party having submitted a list of candidates for election as Regional Assembly members for the Island region. The 2 Regional Assembly members for each local region shall be returned under the simple majority system. The members for the Island region shall be returned under the system of proportional representation. (The Rodrigues Regional Assembly Act 2001)

For this 2012 elections, altogether 24 candidates were in the fray as nominated by four political parties, all the four parties have submitted a list of 6 candidates each {FPR (Front Patriotique Rodriguais); Mouvement Rodriguais (MR); Muvman Independantis Rodriguais (MIR); OPR (Organisation du Peuple de Rodrigues)}.

Election is very likey to India, out of total 27,776 electorates 22,550 casted their vote (on 5 February 2012 at Rodrigues) which is 81.19%. For the convenience of electorates and officials the election was conducted in 78 voting rooms of different 15 polling stations. Surprisingly the election was very very peaceful that no report of violence or intimidation was found which is also proved that the police personals who engaged on the election duty had not possessed weapon / armed; this is the symbol of true and democratic election. Election campaigns started with music gathering where party leaders have been trying to woo their supporters by consolidating their policy programmes that led down in election manifestos. In this regard, mention may be made two important issues that they pledged to strengthen or solve the water problem and the other for more autonomy for Rodrigues. Note, Rodrigues is another island that depends on the Mauritius but they have separate Regional Assembly to govern the region.  

Factor contributing free and fair election in Mauritius

• Good governance / incumbency factor

Voice of repentance against the government is very minimal and coming up mostly from the opposition leader of the national assembly who made positive criticism to alert the ruling party. The main issue of the nation is to be water problem, electoral reform which also includes women reservation so as to enable them more participation in the decision making bodies. Differences are not appeared in between hill and valley / urban and rural that almost all the road and other facilities are provided the same. All the roads are connected with national bus transport. One of the remarkable appearances of the government is “Practicability” that all the laws and regulations can be implemented up to the expectation. For instance, free education up to 16 years (Hr. Secondary), free transport to all the students, free health care to all the citizens, old age pension and housing for poor, and other many more welfare programmes are implementing very effectively. Besides government respect all the fundamental rights. Action taken against the people who contravened law of the land is very fast. For the matter of corruption there is also Independent Committee Against Corruption (ICAC) that looks into all the cases of corruption, so the corruption rate is also relatively less, as per the report of the worldwide corruption perception ranking 2011 published by Transparency International, Mauritius is in the 46 rank while India got 95.  

In Manipur, both the central and state government have no sincere that every issue and matter is carrying forward for another issue and ultimately politicised it. This is one of the most important factors to ignore the existing laws and failure of implementation of various schemes for the welfare of the people. Almost all the government departments have issues of abnormal activities like, ignorance of duty, monopoly, favouritism, corruption… is it not the in-activism of governance. It is also seemingly influenced to general populace to develop a stereotype mindset to indulge in malpractices. Recent inauguration of many central funded projects like City Convention Centre will still remain to complete and it will take more time to have its utility.

• Rule of law

All the people respect law of the land very strictly that most of them have try to protect public  order which is also result of good governance in the sense that government has also care of their activities that whether it is against the fundamental rights and freedom of the citizens. As such police forces usually have not carried armed weapon, instead they are engage in the traffic control. Yes, at times, the cases of theft and other minor illicit cases are reported in the newspapers but no report of killing by state and non-state or terrorist is found.

What we have experiencing in the Manipur is very negative that if the government orders band something someone will search the way to go through backdoor, as such the order seems to be only namesake. Besides the government has no cared of its subsequence effect whether it is against the will of the people or against the basic rights. Very interestingly most of the people do what they wish that they do not bother of others right or respect. You see the HSLC exam scandal, frequent band and blockade, overestimated power of different organisations. It is vis-versa, if the government is weak or failed the civil organisation will strong and even encroach as law enforcing agency. It is seemingly normal process as the civil organisation sanctions reward to the people even settles the guilty. See the matter of present state election; the election commission of India have tried to bring maximum free and fair election. Having aware of the conflict situation and the previous election records of malpractices the commission has taken up various novel strategies but all the stakeholders (party, candidates and electorates) do not cooperate even though they are talking about democratic election. Most of the political elites and candidates had busy to search the loopholes of the election code of conduct and also supported by maximum electorates that is proved by cash for vote that doesn’t claim all the electorates. Violation of election code of conduct and cash for vote is taking in to consider normal electoral phenomenon in India. Even the Minster of Law (Khursheed) acted against the recommendation of ECI that witnessed the ignorance of the law.  Very remarkably, it is known to all that the mentality of the candidates supported by Nagaland’s regional party who speak senseless voices alleging one and all even against the efforts of ECI.

• Mentality and civic sense

All the citizens wanted to live in mutual coordination and understanding that shows by their normal practices. They will not throw any waste on the roadside or other that it will put down Dustbin placing in every corner of the road and public places. They care of environmental pollution that no one can see smoke from such huge amount of vehicles they are using. All communities live together in every place where they prefer or owned and support the inter-caste marriage. Though the island has inhabited many ethnic groups none of them committed any act that may lead or heart the other sentiment, community or individual. None of them criticised other religions and respect each other and try to strengthen their religion with the financial assistance of government. Most significantly, they maintain discipline which is one of the core elements to consolidate democratic culture that they will follow what the elders say.

In Manipur most of the leaders whether in the public and private has very less commitment that they do on the wrong way that has more self-centre interest which shows the mental standard. One or another conflict will come up when any task carried out by using in the interest of people. For instance the gimmicks of Manipur-Japan friendly football match, one way traffic system of Paona Bazar where powered groups will encroach the binding while they advise to follow the public; HSLC exam scenario etc. It is indeed very confused that even who talk for the better of the society turns immediately and involved in unexpected allegations without considering human integrity and dignity. Plurality and multifaceted issues is becoming a common phenomenon in various movements, perhaps there might be influencing factor from the politicians. Confidence to one and another is seemingly lost as such unethical and immoral practices are very often. 

Yes socio political background is so difference that no issues, conflict and movement is there in Mauritius whilst umpteenth issues and movements are normal procedure in Manipur as the government is irresponsible. In democratic states, parties everywhere have the potential to be effective and accountable, but they face enormous challenges of the political context and the conflict environment in which they function. But it is late to change their mindset to pay attention for consolidation of democratic government. For the better society and good governance, free and fair election will possible only when the political elites respect political morality, that they have to draw attention to renovate people / electorate’s mindset to feel free to vote whatever they like without any influence on the basis of good governance. Let’s try once, to produce a government who elected by democratic election that political parties have responsibility to do. By the way all the electorates are also appeal not to expect influential materials from the party or candidates. Such mental change can be activated by the political party only that all the civil societies and other illegal organisations cannot bifurcate from the pool of electoral politics which is experiencing today itself, it is quite natural.

Read more / Original news source: http://kanglaonline.com/2012/02/election-and-democracy-lessons-to-be-learnt-from-mauritius/

By Abraham Lotha
Out of the box. Muivah is fond of saying that the Indo-Naga conflict will be solved out of the box. Whether the conflict is settled within or outside the Indian Constitution, one has to give credit to the Government of India (GoI) and the NSCN (IM) for venturing to discuss various options to settle the Naga problem out of the box. For this, international experts on constitutions have been consulted and subsequently proposals have been made and are being re-adjusted in the negotiations.

For instance, Muivah’s comments, “We also have to understand India’s position,” seem to show a softening of, indeed to belie, the original demand of ‘all or nothing.’ On the other hand, the GoI’s offer of a ‘broad-based political package,’ or ‘Christmas gift,’ or a ‘supra-state’ status, even if they are only vague hints, is a starting point for further negotiations. The current impasse in the negotiations can then be considered as a creative tension.

At this juncture, both the Government of India and the NSCN (IM) have a tendency to want to know, in advance, the outcome of the talks. This curious positioning reminds one of the times when the IM leadership calls for the Naga public’s prayer and fasting for God’s guidance. The call would be fine except for one small detail: the decisions have already been made, which means that the prayer and fasting being requested are really not for guidance at all.

My point is that the talks have to be open-ended, and both parties have to respect each other’s position and be committed to the outcome. As I stated in an earlier article, the right of the Indian government to consider the Nagas as part of India should be respected. So also the Nagas’ right as a people should be respected. No party wants to lose. The Government of India and the Nagas should not underestimate the other, nor should they ask people to give up their dream.  At the moment, unfortunately, both parties are asking from the other what they don’t want to give. This is because the negotiations are being done strictly within the foredoomed framework of the Indian nation-state versus the “break-away” Naga nation.

Sovereignty, or the denial of it, has been the bone of contention between the Nagas and the GoI. But like most situations in life, it is important to note that the way we conceive of nation or sovereignty is very much shaped by our experiences of history. The lack of meaningful progress in the negotiations has shown that the hegemonic effect of the nation-state’s defining episteme, namely sovereignty, has made it difficult for both the GoI and the IM to think of alternative relations to those dictated by it. Both parties are locked in the mindset and structure of governance derived from a fundamentalist interpretation of the nation-state, thereby reducing their relationship to one of inevitable antagonism between winner/loser and ruler/ruled reminiscent of colonialism, instead of making the relationship into one of mutually beneficial postcolonial co-existence.

Thomas Biolsi reminds us of the possibility of this latter positive alternative when he refers to the nation-state’s “circulation not only as an obligatory but also as a liberatory category in the global public sphere,” a category which lends itself to “both political realities and subversive political imaginaries.” Neither the GoI nor the IM has explored the untapped potential that Biolsi speaks of. Both seem unaware that seeing the sovereign state as the only modular form available to them makes difficult, if not impossible, the need to visualize other forms of sovereignty and other forms of being a nation in the twenty-first century.  Such blindness can become an impediment for good governance and state-building. It will serve both sides well to heed Michael Seymour’s warning, that, failure to “conceptualize nations in different ways, one can then be led to adopt a negative attitude toward legitimate forms of nationalism, and these attitudes may in turn have enormous political consequences, sometimes even leading to violence.”

Sovereignty, then, has to be thought of in inventive ways. As Sanjib Baruah says, “Unlike political scientists of a generation ago that took the modern idea of absolute and indivisible sovereignty as normal and desirable, many today look to shared sovereignty as an aspect of the usable past that could provide a framework for resolving many stubborn territorial disputes of today.”  The challenge for India as a nation-state, then, is how to govern with issues of heterogeneity and diversity, and for the Nagas, it is how to be a unique nation among nations.

In multi-ethnic states, the challenge for both the state and the nations within the state is to realize that there are different ways of being a nation just as there are different ways of enacting sovereignty. Non-state nations have been influenced by the popular thinking that each nation should be entitled to its own nation-state. But homogenous nation-states are becoming a rarity especially in terms of territory and ethnicity. Besides, as Ottaway says, “nationhood, or a sense of common identity, by itself does not guarantee the viability of a state.” Along the same lines, Donald Horowitz argues, proving the Naga experience, that secession from states as a means to self-determination by ethnic groups is almost never an answer to the problems of ethnic conflict and violence. For Horowitz, as a sovereign Nagalim might learn too late, the most likely scenario is that the minorities in the new states become oppressed and their rights are not likely to be respected. The right direction, Horowitz suggests (something GoI should pay attention to), is for states to seek internal accommodation including devolution of power by means such as regional autonomy or federalism.

Fortunately, unlike the nation-state’s sovereignty there are no modular forms for state-building, so each multi-ethnic state can innovate according to their particular contexts. There is no one-size-fits-all model of state building. Conceptually, scholars such as Mark Berger suggest that, “the term nation-building is increasingly being substituted for the less problematic concept of state-building.” Thus, in multi-ethnic states, as Ottaway opines, “the goal of nation building should not be to impose common identities on deeply divided peoples but to organize states that can administer their territories and allow people to live together despite differences.” That is to say, force and armed repression are the proven way to a failed state; they won’t do. Rather, consensual democratic methods are the preferred ways for countries that would aspire to greatness.

It is clear then that just as there is no one definition of nation and nationalism, there is also no one way of being a nation or a state. There can be other ways of being a sovereign state and a nation than the supposedly irreconcilable nations-within-state paradigm handed down by colonialism. In the Indo-Naga case, one innovative postcolonial example is worth a mention: China’s ‘one nation two systems’ model under which Hong Kong functions as a Special Administrative Region. Though directly under the authority of the Central People’s Government of the People’s Republic of China for foreign and defense affairs, Hong Kong enjoys a high degree of autonomy including separate visa and passport agreements.

Should the Chinese practice seem unappealing to the GoI, there are other models. Puerto Rico as Associate State of the United States, the relationship of Gibraltar to the UK, the relationship of the Cook Islands and Niue to New Zealand, Liechtenstein’s status as a dependent territory of Switzerland, or Monaco with France. These are some examples of alternative types of sovereignty within nation-states. Incidentally, the GoI’s ‘supra-state’ concept has in it something of the Nordic Sami Convention.

Considering these types of sovereignty mentioned above, where the nation-state is only one among political geographies, Biolsi suggests that political entities “see these heteronomous or nonnation-state geographies not as anomalies or exceptions to the nation-state rule, but as concrete realities in which many people live and think about their rights and interests”. In other words, ethnic-driven states can co-exist with and not displace a sovereign state model.

Serious nation building is an everyday commitment, and the first task is to prevent political differences from spiraling into violence. The Indo-Naga relations have been that for too long. The time for violence and apathy has long past. Now is the time to negotiate an actionable, workable framework. The challenge of nation-building, as Ottaway says in another context, “need not become a quagmire as long as the effort has clear goals and sufficient resources.” Both Nagas and the Government of India need to come up with proposals for a win-win situation. “Poor eyes limit your sight; poor vision limits your deeds.” Let these words of Franklin Field not be repeated by posterity about the present generation of Indian and Naga leaders.

Read more / Original news source: http://kanglaonline.com/2012/02/naga-nationalism-out-of-the-box-settlement/

By Tanveer Jafri
In recent days, rhetoric of war has escalated between USA and Iran. The US naval warship USS Lincoln is said to be moving towards Persian Gulf. America has also accelerated the work on development of a 13.6 tonne Massive Ordnance Penetrator bomb, which is capable of destroying the underground nuclear facilities of Iran. The efforts to isolate Iran & cripple its economy have been on for years. Notwithstanding the sanctions & embargoes imposed by the West, Iran has sustained and expanded its nuclear program. While Iran has repeatedly insisted that its nuclear program is for peaceful purposes, the US claims that Tehran is clandestinely involved in developing nuclear weapons which would pose threat to the global security.

Tensions between the US & Iran reached to new levels recently when Iranian President Mahmhoud Ahmadinejad launched indigenously produced enriched uranium fuel rods in Tehran. He also announced the setting up of four more nuclear reactors. This is seen as Iran’s way of showing to the West that it has advanced its nuclear program based on indigenously developed technology. After this technological feat achieved by Tehran, the US has once against called upon the international community to severe its ties with Iran. But Ahmadinejad is apparently unfazed. He announced, “Some 6,000 centrifuges were operating (in Natanz facility), 3,000 new ones have been added – bringing the total to 9,000.” Although he also assured that Iran would share this information with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) & comply with the IAEA safeguards. Daring the US, Ahmadinejad asserted, “The era of bullying nations has passed. The arrogant powers cannot monopolise nuclear technology. They tried to prevent us by issuing sanctions and resolutions but failed.” He also tried to convey that America is no more all powerful and if need arises, Iran can teach a lesson to it.

Iran’s nuclear program is not new. It dates back to 1960s. But after the Islamic Revolution of 1979, it had to be stopped. It was revived after 1990 and has progressed notwithstanding American sanctions. Washington accuses Tehran of clandestinely developing nuclear weapons in the garb of its nuclear program in violation of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). But not all countries are ready to tow this American line on Iran. Its main reason is that the claims of the US regarding Saddam’s Iraq possessing Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) were found false and they acted just as an excuse to topple Saddam regime. Therefore, majority of the countries are not ready to believe America again on Iran issue. Moreover, it is well understood that Washington is just trying to secure Israel by circumscribing Iran’s increasing strength in the region.

In December, Iran shocked the world when it claimed to have landed an American drone which it said, was spying into Iranian airspace. Embarrassed Pentagon said that the drone crossed into Iranian airspace from Afghanistan owing to a technical snag. In latest revelation, Iran has said that it possesses six American drones, which it has landed by deploying Iranian communication technology. Iran has also announced that very soon it will exhibit those drones.

In January, an Iranian court issued a death sentence to an American of Iranian descent convicted on charges of spying for the Central Intelligence Agency. On January 11, an Iranian nuclear scientist died in a “terrorist bomb blast” in northern Tehran when an unidentified motorcyclist attached a magnetic explosive device to the scientist’s car. Iran once again indicated that it believed the United States and Israel were responsible for this killing.

Tensions escalated recently when Israeli officials blamed Iran for bomb attacks in the capitals of Georgia, India and Thailand targeted at Israeli Embassy personnel. Evidence suggests that the bombings were part of a single plot, for which Israel has blamed Iran. Iranian officials, however, have denied any involvement & instead accused Israel of conspiring these bombings. In fact, Israel also wants the US to attack Iran & destroy its nuclear establishments and in the process weaken its military. Washington is not only increasing international pressure on Iran through sanctions, but also encouraging domestic opposition against Ahmadinejad’s government within Iran. Washington expected New Delhi to stand with it on Iran issue. But taking a clear stand, India has politely rejected the American suggestion and instead called for a diplomatic route to break this deadlock. Big countries like Russia, China and India are apparently standing with Iran as far as the option of military action is concerned.

As American allies, countries like France, Spain, Italy, Greece, Netherlands & Portugal proposed to stop oil imports from Iran from July onwards. They estimated that Iran could be made to fall in line using such threats. But their policy seems to have boomeranged as Iran has decided to stop crude exports to these countries with immediate effect. By this step, Iran has tried to prove that it is strong enough economically and doesn’t care for any threats. This standoff between the West and Iran is a matter of serious concern in the times of global economic slowdown and a danger of looming recession. Many questions are striking people’s minds such as why Iran is refusing to bow down under American pressure? Does America consider Iran as another Iraq? Does Iran treat American threats as mere hollow rhetoric? Facts suggest that after America’s rout in Afghanistan, groups like Taliban have stopped fearing it. Its claim of Iraq possessing WMDs was found to be a sham. Added to this, economic slowdown has crippled Washington’s ability to get involved in other such needless wars. Perhaps this is the reason why Iran is openly challenging the American hegemony.

Read more / Original news source: http://kanglaonline.com/2012/02/iran-refuses-to-bow-down/